Debatable whether XP still has more market share than Windows 7

[BruceR]

- and the most frustrating is Windows 7 ... in which IE8 is much less stable than IE7.
I know people want the latest gizmo, but often 'no change' is the best option.

Why not upgrade IE8 to IE9? It's much better than any previous version of IE in so many ways:

Why Internet Explorer 9?

10 reasons why you should upgrade to IE9

Upgrading IE8 to IE9 Can Save Companies Millions of Dollars

In this case, change IS the best option.

Bruce

[Just Plain Fred]

@Just Plain Fred:
If you still believe in Norton products and are still willing to pay them then you have never had one of the better TDSS/Alureon infections. There are nasty variants out there that will render your system helplessly infected. Even on XP in my experience MSE is classes better and less workload than ANY version of Norton or McAfee.

And not updating? IMHO you are dancing an a tightrope without balancing bar and with no net underneath. In a home environment for the "average Joe" home user this is a certain recipe for disaster.

eikelein,
Hello... Just would like to explain my comments..

1. I have been running this "paradigm" for several years now on several OS's with out any problems..So my results are based on "facts"

2. I believe that "Security Matters" should be left to the "Security people", In my case Norton (NIS 2012 now) and Malwarebytes PRO.. So....i never have to be concerned about "Patch Tuesday" ...Ever. Norton has the ability to be completely customized and set to my liking, and updates hourly or even more frequently as needed. Also has a "Boot time" scan option , emergency boot disk , etc. Malwarebytes PRO runs in real time and can also be set to my needs.

3. Updating ? Once i have removed myself from patch Tuesday (Security wise).. What is the need to Patch working OS's?... If everything is working and stable ... Putting a "patch" on is only looking to shoot yourself in the foot. The "Lounge" is replete with horror stories of "patch installs" gone bad... As i have said many times before "you can't improve on everything is working"

4. "Average Joe" . All I'm doing is pointing out that there are other ways to do things... Hey if you ( or Average Joe) want to be involved in an endless cycle of "Patch", don't "Patch",......It's OK to patch ..Don't let me get in the way of your success and happiness..Get after it... For me..... i got off that bus years ago Regards Fred

[RAdu]

I beg to differ.
I would say that most home users don't have a choice when replacing and old computer or getting a new one. It's Win7 or nothing.
As far as upgrading XP, I see absolutely no advantage.
Security issues are a big scare.
If you keep up with the fixes and run a decent security program, there';s no problem.
I have a few users on XP (all versions) with Norton Intenet Security and they are happy.
Additionally, many a time upgrading to Win7 also requires upgrading the applications. Nothing to sneeze at.

[BruceR]

Additionally, many a time upgrading to Win7 also requires upgrading the applications. Nothing to sneeze at.

Any examples of programs that won't run in Windows 7 (even in XP mode)?

Bruce

[eikelein]

@Bruce:
My classic example for this is Intuit's Quick Books.

I see quite a few customers, mostly tiny mom and pop style businesses, that still run Quick Books 2006 or 2008. I always have them verify with Intuit ay least by email, that is in writing, that the new version they want to buy (finally!) can read the data files of the old version. Surprise, surprise; in one extreme case we had to send the data files to Intuit to get them converted into a compatible format, luckily free of charge.

To explain XP mode to my average home customer has proven to be next to impossible.

[eikelein]

@RAdu:

I concur wholeheartedly. Except that I ask my home customers why the want to pay Norton et al when MSE does it for free with less workload?

There are just too many people that don't seem to grasp what updates are for, that is to harden the system against existing malware/viruses.

[Just Plain Fred]

Except that I ask my home customers why the want to pay Norton et al when MSE does it for free with less workload?

eikelein,
Hello... I think that your giving Norton NIS a "black eye" based on the old Norton performance... Show me the screen shot of MSE's impact on CPU usage Regards Fred

[CLiNT]

MSE's combined CPU usage at idle:
Untitled.jpg
It went to 0.6 a couple times but I wasn't quick enough to catch it.

[eikelein]

@CLiNT:
Thank you for saving me the time ;-)

[Just Plain Fred]

MSE's combined CPU usage at idle:

It went to 0.6 a couple times but I wasn't quick enough to catch it.

Clint,
Hello... I don't think that it's a "Fair" comparison as your CPU is an intel i7 "6 core" vs my AMD "dual core" (% of CPU total use numbers will be skewed) My point is that MSE Doesn't have a "Built in" CPU monitor as one of the attributes of NIS 2012 and Norton is not a "Resource Hog" as some have portrayed it . MSE vs NIS 2012 there is no comparison as NIS has many more features ... Think we should end this as it's getting off topic and if any wish to pursue Norton NIS vs MSE ..we should start a new thread. Regards Fred

[CLiNT]

Points well taken Fred.

[ruirib]

Hmmm... Fred, 0% is 0%, regardless of the number of cores...
Not that I worry much about MSE, I do think it's too heavy on disk usage, when you don't have an SSD. I got tired of it burdening my system and replaced it by something else.